21–30 of 94 posts
> To be super clear, we have not yet made any changes to Twitter’s content moderation policies
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586149451348910081
So it's not clear why these supposedly banned groups are now supposedly able to rejoin without consequence?
I suppose "not changing the policies" isn't synonymous with "continuing to enforce the stated policies".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's gonna do that debunking though? You? For every young man that manages to receive the message that the Holocaust didn't happen and it's all lies, and decides to hear that garbage as gospel; you're volunteering to deprogram each and every one of them? Because that's the issue, the lack of debunking. We couldn't even get people to hear there aren't microchips in the vaccine, or that we've been to the moon. More st…
People hold views, so what? Why can't we just accept that people have differing views, and just agree to disagree? Why do we have to force everyone to have the same belief system? People get angry when religious people proselytize, but other topics are okay to force on people? I have differing political/social/economic opinions than other people, but I have no desire to force my opinion on other people are make them…
The kind of sentiment you're expressing often comes from people who are either ignorant of fascism / authoritarianism and how it affects societies, or are apathetic towards those outcomes.
You must understand that there are people out there primarily driven by fear and hatred, that, once given positions of power, will use that power to denigrate or otherwise erode the humanity of people they simply don't like.
It's not enough to just not be racist, you must be anti-racist. It's not enough to just not be fascist, you must be anti-fascist.
No one is forcing us to follow these figures on Twitter or vote for their party. Let the party members say what they like within the law. Debunk if it need be, and let adults decide for themselves what the truth is. If authoritarians try to stop us hearing from a political party, they remove our agency. And we don’t like that. Ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
> Debunk if it need be Fascists are very good at subverting this process so I wouldn’t count on it. I do believe visibility is good though re: the Streisand effect, and, of course, making them more visible to anti-fascists is good praxis ;)
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
The far left extremists on Twitter are still there, spreading hate, and never got banned. Why so much attention to the far-right?
I'm not on Twitter and yet I'm probably aware of far-right commentary on the platform. I can't say I'm aware of any "far left extremists" as you call them. Who are the "far left extremists" that you mention? Isn't there more attention to far-right Twitter accounts due to the increase in violence taking place in the name of far-right politics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paradox is used as an argumentative device for judging whether a tolerant and democratic society is possible (with liberal institutions ensuring intolerance doesn’t emerge) or if maintenance of tolerance would require an autocratic philosopher-king. The continual application of it to the online censorship debate makes little sense in light of its original rhetorical context. It is also constantly cited in policy…
See the "Tolerance and freedom of speech" section in the Wikipedia link for further discussion of how the idea applies to speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's gonna do that debunking though? You? For every young man that manages to receive the message that the Holocaust didn't happen and it's all lies, and decides to hear that garbage as gospel; you're volunteering to deprogram each and every one of them? Because that's the issue, the lack of debunking. We couldn't even get people to hear there aren't microchips in the vaccine, or that we've been to the moon. More st…
People hold views, so what? Why can't we just accept that people have differing views, and just agree to disagree? Why do we have to force everyone to have the same belief system? People get angry when religious people proselytize, but other topics are okay to force on people? I have differing political/social/economic opinions than other people, but I have no desire to force my opinion on other people are make them…
This is nonsense. Just because people have the right to believe what they want doesn't mean that lies have the same value as truths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See the "Tolerance and freedom of speech" section in the Wikipedia link for further discussion of how the idea applies to speech.
I’ve read the Wikipedia page. I also own the copy of the book where it is mentioned, which I’ve also read. People are paying it way more attention than Popper himself did (it’s not even mentioned in the original text proper) and further treating it as some sort of immutable law, when that completely ignores the purposes for which the argument was created and that it was never a formal observation of how society actua…
FWIW, Elon tweeted this today: > To be super clear, we have not yet made any changes to Twitter’s content moderation policies https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586149451348910081 So it's not clear why these supposedly banned groups are now supposedly able to rejoin without consequence? I suppose "not changing the policies" isn't synonymous with "continuing to enforce the stated policies".
No one is forcing us to follow these figures on Twitter or vote for their party. Let the party members say what they like within the law. Debunk if it need be, and let adults decide for themselves what the truth is. If authoritarians try to stop us hearing from a political party, they remove our agency. And we don’t like that. Ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
Advertisers force us to eat shite, that's the business model. Microtargetting means (relatively) micro budgets are all that's needed to reach particular audiences. In practice, it's all about finding the cheapest way to amplify, that's the business model of particular strains of politics. Memes meant something before the internet, and rapid distribution on so called social media means well engineered strains will spr…
Either people have rights or they don't. We don't need the government to pick and choose how individuals express themselves in order to protect others, not because it doesn't make sense, but because there is no way to do it without a Ministry of Truth, which is arguably even worse.
Remember, freedom of speech is freedom from governmental oppression first and foremost, the kind that arises when authoritarians get to tell people what and how to think.